How to identify an incipient Detached Retina

Subject: Vision Concern.

An sudden increase in floaters can indicate
incipient detached retina. See:

http://www.sightwise.org/

If you over -6 diopters myopic, the risk
of a detached retina is 1 in 20.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis

 

Otis,

Is it true that you had a detached retina? Was it before or after (or
perhaps while)you cured your myopia? Do you have data of the risk of
reformed myopes? Please tell!

 

the original title of this thread is about the signs and symptoms of
retinal detachment. and now you make a stupid statement like "the
cause of a detached retina is nothing difficult to understand" and
then proceed to talk a bunch of hogwash about vision improvement. why
would a supposed "kid" even post on a topic about retinal detachment--
just admit you don't know anything about it. And why does Otis post
on the topic-- he doesn't know anything about it except what he might
have read from experts who have written about it. As we all know,
Otis has ZERO training in vision and the eye and ZERO clinical
experience. he just has a pet theory and he thrusts it on everyone
whether they want to hear it or not.

regarding the issue of the signs and symptoms of retinal detachment:
- abrupt increase in the number of floaters
- sensations of flashing lights
- reduced vision in a sector of the visual field ("like a veil
covering a portion of the visual field")
- reduced vision or blur in one eye of recent onset

there are others. and vision improvement has NOTHING to do with it.

and don't try that BS crap about myopia progressing to retinal
detachment so therefore we should all try some kind of vision
improvement scheme. THERE IS NO VISION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME THAT HAS
BEEN SHOWN TO WORK. don't try to claim that the "majority opinion"
tries to ignor vision improvement blah blah blah. the majority
opinion also ignors the notion of alien abductions. if you want the
scientific/medical community to recognize what you believe THEN PROVE
IT!

this is simply the most moronic piece of writing I have ever read.

why don't you two go back to your iblindness forum and just stay
there. or is it because not many people post there (wonder why?) and
you are trying to come over here and troll around to get your jollies.

 

What are you trying to do? Is this some kind of ridiculous scare
tactic to get people interested in your dumb plus lens theories? Are
you just trying to stir up a little hornets nest here so you can get
your daily dose of mental masturbation? Go away you old fool.

 

Dear Dr. Rick,

Subject: The doctors who provid no warnings about RISK.

I am sorry you do not provide honest facts about the
risk a person faces who is at -6 diopters. But
this is EXACTLY what the person said who was
examined by an optometrist BEFORE he developed
that detached retina. It is this ATTITUDE of yours
that is the problem, and I think you have proven
my point.

And yes, you are "nowheresville" as you
so elequently state.

And yes, there are second-opinion optometrist
who DO CARE about this issue, and help their
own childern avoid entry into a negative refractive
STATE:

www.chinamyopia.org

Otis

 

Dear Otis,

The guys here say that you avoid answering inconvenient questions. Is
that true?
If it is, you certainly wouldn't do it to me, would you? Because if
you would, I might start to believe what they are saying about you.
Ne, it couldn't be, because you seem to always be polite and
civilized. So would you please answer my question above re your own
detached retina?

I really am not just trying to tease you. As somebody who has
recently experienced this ultimate nightmare of detached retina, I
have a sincere and genuine interest in the subject. Did it happen to
me because I was a bad girl with bad reading habits? Could I have
avoided it by listening to Kaze and let nature or you direct me? But
most importantly, could I have changed permanently the shape of my
elongated myopic eyes (though only moderately myopic and not in the
high risk category), like you did, thus skipping the macular hole,
retinal detachment and cataract altogether?

Please Otis, prove the old guys here wrong and don't ignore me and my
questions. Tell me and the millions of myopes about your own detached
retina. Thanks.

 

No. Our position is that you are wrong and your outdated theories
badly irrelevant.

Of course, feel free to carp about the perils of myopia. Nobody wants
to be myopic, or hyperopic for that matter. We all want our children
to be perfect in every way. Somehow nature gets in the way of a good
plan. As I recall, you wanted to be a pilot, but your bad eye genes
spoiled those plans.

Have a nice day.

DrG

 

Dear Ms.Brainy,

Subject: Reject the word "cure". Just say prevent
a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.

Let me answer your questions this way:

Dr. Raphaelson spelled out his efforts with the general
public for prevention, and their reaction to it -- in the "Printer's
Son".

I concluded that you could NOT deliever plus-prevention with
the public walking in off the street and expecting very, VERY
sharp vision in five minutes. I simply do not get
into that type of argument.

On the basis of pure science, I say the following:

1. If you take a population of fundamental eyes, and place
a -3 diopter lens on them, they will change their refractive STATE
by -2 diopter in less than six months. This proves the dynamic
quality of the natural eye.

2. I accept this as SCIENTIFIC proof. This does indicate
that while the minus works in five minutes, and is impressive
in that sense, it does have a serious secondary problem.

3. So we are ONLY talking about prevention, or avoidance
of a negative refractive STATE, and BEFORE any minus lens
is applied.

4. I agree that it is only preventable, and that once you
begin wearing that wretched minus, you will not be
able to get out of it, or in your parlence, there is
no "cure", only prevention if you have the motivation
for it.

To further clarify:

Brainy> Otis,

Is it true that you had a detached retina?

Otis> Incipient detached retina. I had a burst of floaters, and
curved lines that I knew were straight. Since I was at -6 diopters
I was aware how risky that situation was for me. I contacted
a retina specialist, who checked, and used a laser to
attach the retina to the sclera. Thus this was a PREVENTIVE
issue for me.

Brainy> Was it before or after (or
perhaps while)you cured your myopia?

Otis> Read the above. Once you START with the minus, you
will, not be able to get out of it. While there is some prospect
of clearing your vision from 20/60 (if you have the motivation),
beyond that point you can not get out of it. Thus the
discussion with my nephew, and his choice in the matter.

Brainy> Do you have data of the risk of
reformed myopes?

Otis> If by "myopes" you mean a Snellen of 20/60, and
a refractive STATE of -1.25 diopters, then the data-base
is very small.

Please tell!

Otis> I will post the remarks that Dr. Perkins made on
the "Morbidity of Myopia", in due course.

Otis> In fact, AVOID entry to myopia, is a major reason
why a parent should be interested in helping his child
in the use of PREVENTIVE methods, that are far
more important that "the plus".

Otis> In effect, these methods (that can involve the plus)
must be taught to the parent and child, understood
and acted on.

Otis> Just one man's opinion.

 

a/k/a "ducking them."

Oh, God. Not that again.

Or explain the deficiencies in your argument, or keep up with modern
science, etc., etc.

That my myopic niece, Joy, unequivocally PROVES that the plus lens
doesn't work.

Thank you.

But I never speak of his (illegitimate?) myopic sister, Joy. For her,
it didn't work. Hmm. Sort of shoots apart the theory, no?

 

I agree with the emphasis on preventive methods. Unfortunately, a
proven universal preventive method -- other than the use of atropine
-- is lacking. Therefore, unless you are advocating the use of
atropine or pirenzepine, then you are misleading people by inferring
that universal myopia prevention is possible. Even pirenzepine
doesn't work universally.

You have myopic genes. Therefore, your entry into myopia was
unavoidable.

DrG

 

Dear Ms. Brainy,

Subject: Children and their wretched reading habits
(reading at -10 diopters or more) -- as a habit,
and for long periods of time.

I think both the parents and child should be
informed in a competent of the risks of
allowing their children to read in this manner.

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/ReadDist.html

This is NOT a medical subject at this time. But rather
a matter of intelligence and judgement of the parents
about the proven effect that a long-term NEAR envirornment
on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye.

The question is, "...who is responsible". I think this
is more a matter of education, that it is a medical
issue.

Just teaching the child to always keep his eyes at LEAST
12 inches from the page at all times would be a start.

But this sort of understanding places more responsibility
on parent and the child.

But I respect the issue in this way. Is it the responsibility
of the N.I.H. to prevent obesity in young children -- or
is the responsibilty of the parent and the child?

I think THAT is the issue.

To further respond:

Otis> No they avoid all questions related to testing the
fundamental eye for its dynamic quality and charistic.
This is a matter of them avoiding proven scientific facts,
or trying to deflect them for the convenience of quick-fixing
the public with a minus lens in five minutes. (But keep
in mind the "Printer's Son", and ask the question how
could ANYONE help the printer's son when the only
thing he understood was a quick-fix with that minus?
The responsibility must rest with the person himself,
if he wants to change this situation for his child.

Otis> Acpting the proven dynamic behavior of the natural
eye, then I answered your questions on a scientific level.
Or, in terms of the preventive second-opinion as experessed
by Steve Leung.

Because if

Otis> You are free to believe anything you wish.

Otis> As compared to the foul mouth some of the majority-opinion
have -- when they see they will lose the argument on
scientific grounds.

So would you please answer my question above re your own

Otis> As I have.

Otis> And I am not trying to give you a hard time either. But
just presenting the second-opinion -- in case you have children,
and they do not wish to follow your foot steps.

As somebody who has

Otis> Same for me. That is the reason (among others) to
follow the logic of Jacob Raphaelson's second-opinion.

Did it happen to

Otis> See the graphic. It develops because BOTH OF US,
have that habit of starting to read at -3 diopters, but slowly
putting our eyes on the book (almost), and reading
at -10 diopters.

Could I have

Otis> No, Brainy, you would have to think for yourself, and
make your own choice in this matter.


But

Otis> I explicitly stated that I am FOR avoiding ENTRY into
a negative refractive STATE, and suggest that it is possible.
These majority-opinion ODs claim that avoiding ENTRY
into a negative state is IMPOSSIBLE.

Otis> They further state that reading at -10 diopters for
long period of time has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE
STATE OF THE NATURAL EYE. I disagree for
the reasons of science, and scientific facts.


thus skipping the macular hole,

Otis> If they would hold up the reaction of the "Printer's Son",
then I would agree that prevention is impossible for them,
because of the ignorance of the father in that case.
You can not have BOTH a quick-fix and prevention. You
will have to make an intelligent choice on the threshold
as Dr. Stirling Colage did.


and don't ignore me and my

Otis> I am not. Read and understand the above. But do
a lot more thinking with that brain of yours.

Tell me and the millions of myopes about your own detached

Otis> That is INCIPIENT detached retina.

Just one man's opinion

Otis



- Hide quoted text -

 

If only that were all that you did ....

Optometrists talk visual hygiene all the time. You just don't know
that.

Nobody knows what that means--least of all you.

So ... who ruined Joy's eyesight? Was it you?

Visual hygiene is taught by optometrists all the time. Just because
you're unaware of that doesn't make its converse true.

No. Not really. The issue--as always--is: what has been proven to be
both safe and effective. That's what gets prescribed, advised,
dispensed, and directed.

The "system" doesn't tend to support sales of snake oil.

I'm sorry you weren't allowed to pursue your dream of being a
commercial pilot, but ... pretending to know the standards of practice
in optometry is reprehensible. You do it, quite obviously, only an
element to buttress your conspiracy theory. It's rather shameful,
really.

What's Leung doing for HIS kids that you didn't do TO your niece,
Joy? How come Joy's a myope with a restricted license, then?

Where's Leung's published data, anyway?

Hello?

 

Sorry to hear about your detachment.

I suppose you now realize that Otis never answers questions directly.
I think he is incapable of maintaining a linear comprehensible train
of thought.

Otis would have us believe that literacy, leading to reading, which
leads to myopia, and then leads to retinal detachment, is the cause.
We should all avoid reading or otherwise we will all have retinal
detachments.

And by the way Otis is significantly nearsighted. His technique
failed to work on him, or his neice Joy. Otis is full of hot air.

 

And how would you know how I counsel my patients?

Steve Leung is a freak. No one accepts what he says. There is no
proof for it. Please provide us a longer list of "second opinion"
experts aside from the strango living in the far east that you treat
as a god.

And how come you are nearsighted; can't you cure yourself? And how
come your niece is nearsighted; you started treating her "at the
threshold" and it still didn't work? And how come published studies
show that plus lenses, undercorrection, taking glasses off to read,
and use of bifocals are ineffective at preventing myopia? Why should
you expect people to believe an old washed-up retired engineer who has
nothing better to do all day than post bullcrap on the internet
compared to numerous highly-regarded academic research groups studying
myopia around the world? NONE of them agree with your theory. It was
disproved decades ago.

Now please, tell us about some of your conspiracy theories. Those are
the most entertaining and serve to solidify everyones impressions that
you are a paranoid psychopath.

 

its all for the better what with his obvious psychological disorders

 

well then your criterion for the acceptance of something as scientific
proof is pathetic. the decades old study that you keep quoting proves
that a species of monkey, who has a -3.00 diopter lens sutured onto
its eye even though it had no refractive error, developed an apparent
myopia later when the lens was removed and its eye was refracted.

now what does that say about humans?

now what does that say about humans who definitely are myopic and need
a minus lens to focus light from distant objects on the retina so as
to simulate emmetropia and properly correct their vision?

obviously your extrapolation of an old experiment where monkeys were
cruelly-treated and had excessively-strong minus lenses sewed onto
their eyes does not AT ALL relate to humans wearing accurately
measured prescription glasses.

and then there is that experiment, that WAS performed in humans, where
excessive minus lenses WERE applied to children's eyeglass
prescriptions, and showed that no increase in myopia occurred. (Goss,
D. (1984)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3)

why don't you just give up otis? why are you coming back to this
forum to be thoroughly discredited and embarrassed again?

 

Dear Otis,

Let's roll back. You began this thread by telling us the high risk of
myopes developing detached retina. Did you post it just to alarm all
for the danger? Had it been so, I would say you should be commended.
Indeed, until several months ago I, together with most people, never
even heard of retinal detachment since it's not a subject that's
discussed outside of forums like this, and I have been in this forum
only a couple of months.

But I suspect that your intention was different. Somehow I feel that
there was a hidden message in your post. What you REALLY wanted to
say is that myopia is a dangerous and not so benign condition,
therefore preventing (if not "curing") myopia is very desirable as it
may save many of us from the misfortune of retinal detachment, which
may bring to blindness if not treated promptly.

I have also noticed that you are very active on the "i-see" yahoo
group, although it seems that even there nobody endorses your "plus"
theory, as they are all preoccupied with various methods of myopia
cure by eye exercise of various kinds, and some of them even report
personal success.

My response to you was aimed at finding out whether you, or they,
claim change in eye shape as a result of your (or their) treatment.
Because if the myopic elongated eye can be brought back to a perfect
spherical shape, then perhaps myopia cure (or prevention, as you wish)
may save us from the dreaded detached retina, but otherwise I have no
idea what your purpose was in starting this thread.

Oh, I hope you know that I am not part of the "conspiracy", since I
don't make my living from selling spectacles to innocent victims and
have no invested interest in increasing the rate of myopia in the
universe.

When you answer, I would appreciate straight answers. Thanks.

 

Do you have any statistical data?

 

data? otis?

ha!

 

Dear Ms. Brany,

Subject: Statistical data on refractive STATES more negative than -6
diopter.

Yes, the title of the paper is, "Morbidity from Myopia", by
E. S. Perkins, M. D.

"High myopia is recognized as a significant
cause of ocular disease, but
most ophthamologists look upon lower degrees
of myopia as little more than a mild social disability
withiout any serious consequences.

It is it purpose of this paper to review the morbidity of
myopia and to suggest that even the lower
degrees of myopia are associated with conditions resulting
in significant ocular morbidity.

Dr. Perkins